🔗 Share this article

It has been that mass murder of 7 October 2023, which deeply affected world Jewry like no other occurrence following the founding of the state of Israel.

Within Jewish communities the event proved shocking. For Israel as a nation, it was a profound disgrace. The entire Zionist endeavor was founded on the presumption that the Jewish state could stop things like this from ever happening again.

Military action was inevitable. However, the particular response that Israel implemented – the obliteration of the Gaza Strip, the casualties of many thousands non-combatants – constituted a specific policy. This particular approach made more difficult the way numerous American Jews processed the attack that set it in motion, and it now complicates their remembrance of the anniversary. In what way can people grieve and remember a horrific event affecting their nation during a catastrophe done to other individuals connected to their community?

The Difficulty of Grieving

The challenge surrounding remembrance lies in the circumstance where there is no consensus regarding the implications of these developments. Actually, among Jewish Americans, this two-year period have seen the disintegration of a decades-long unity regarding Zionism.

The beginnings of a Zionist consensus within US Jewish communities can be traced to an early twentieth-century publication by the lawyer subsequently appointed supreme court justice Louis Brandeis named “The Jewish Question; Finding Solutions”. But the consensus truly solidified subsequent to the six-day war during 1967. Previously, Jewish Americans housed a delicate yet functioning cohabitation across various segments holding diverse perspectives about the requirement for Israel – Zionists, non-Zionists and opponents.

Previous Developments

That coexistence endured during the 1950s and 60s, through surviving aspects of socialist Jewish movements, in the non-Zionist Jewish communal organization, within the critical religious group and comparable entities. Regarding Chancellor Finkelstein, the head of the theological institution, pro-Israel ideology was more spiritual rather than political, and he did not permit performance of Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, during seminary ceremonies during that period. Furthermore, Zionism and pro-Israelism the central focus for contemporary Orthodox communities until after the 1967 conflict. Jewish identitarian alternatives coexisted.

However following Israel overcame its neighbors during the 1967 conflict in 1967, taking control of areas including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan and Jerusalem's eastern sector, US Jewish perspective on the nation evolved considerably. Israel’s victory, combined with longstanding fears about another genocide, led to a developing perspective regarding Israel's essential significance for Jewish communities, and a source of pride regarding its endurance. Language concerning the extraordinary quality of the outcome and the reclaiming of territory provided Zionism a theological, potentially salvific, significance. In those heady years, a significant portion of previous uncertainty toward Israel vanished. During the seventies, Publication editor the commentator famously proclaimed: “Everyone supports Zionism today.”

The Agreement and Its Boundaries

The Zionist consensus left out Haredi Jews – who generally maintained a nation should only be established by a traditional rendering of the messiah – but united Reform, Conservative Judaism, contemporary Orthodox and most non-affiliated Jews. The predominant version of the unified position, what became known as left-leaning Zionism, was established on the idea about the nation as a democratic and liberal – albeit ethnocentric – nation. Numerous US Jews considered the control of Palestinian, Syria's and Egypt's territories following the war as temporary, believing that an agreement was forthcoming that would ensure Jewish population majority within Israel's original borders and neighbor recognition of the state.

Multiple generations of US Jews were raised with support for Israel a fundamental aspect of their religious identity. The state transformed into a key component in Jewish learning. Yom Ha'atzmaut turned into a celebration. Israeli flags adorned many temples. Summer camps became infused with Hebrew music and learning of the language, with Israeli guests and teaching US young people Israeli culture. Visits to Israel increased and peaked with Birthright Israel in 1999, providing no-cost visits to the nation became available to young American Jews. The state affected nearly every aspect of Jewish American identity.

Changing Dynamics

Interestingly, in these decades following the war, Jewish Americans became adept at religious pluralism. Open-mindedness and dialogue across various Jewish groups increased.

Except when it came to Zionism and Israel – there existed diversity reached its limit. One could identify as a right-leaning advocate or a liberal advocate, yet backing Israel as a majority-Jewish country was a given, and questioning that narrative placed you beyond accepted boundaries – an “Un-Jew”, as a Jewish periodical termed it in an essay that year.

However currently, amid of the ruin within Gaza, famine, young victims and frustration about the rejection of many fellow Jews who avoid admitting their responsibility, that agreement has disintegrated. The centrist pro-Israel view {has lost|no longer